Saturday, August 23, 2014

Archive II

226 comments:

I'm excited for you to see my challenge, I wrote this piece last year actually, But before I submit my challenge, I will need to set up an analogy and have you answer three questions (yes or no) based on that analogy. You are responsible for the care of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. You install a state-of-the-art filtration system the size of a semi-truck that is specifically designed to filter raw sewage from a pool. Q1) Would you say that sized filtration system is plenty big enough to clean the pool given only regular use by regular people? Q2) If I'm dumping a tablespoon of raw sewage, once per day into the pool, which is actually much less than what regular use puts into the pool each day, would I be able to claim that I'm effectively going to destroy your pool? Q3) If I issued a $10,000 challenge, stating that you couldn't prove that my tablespoon of raw sewage will have no effect on the cleanliness of your pool, would you win that challenge? Once you answer these 3 questions, I'd be happy to submit my challenge to you! I look forward to your reply to my challenge.

I will disprove man-made global warming with the fewest words and easiest concept to understand: If glaciers, miles thick, we're to form now, would you blame humans? If those glaciers were to then melt, would you blame humans? If what minimal changes, relative to that forming and melting, are happening now, and are caused by humans, what did humans do to cause that forming and melting? To both the answer is NOTHING! It's the sun and its activity and lack thereof, over time, that causes our climate, changes and all.

The Young Turks (progressive news analysis) has added $20,010 of their own money to your challenge on the air. See their clip on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0xwkrMQYlI (just over five minutes)They leave judgement of whether your challenge is met to you, as they note they are neither climate scientists nor physicists. Perhaps you ought go on one of their shows.They are satisfied that no person can meet the challenge that it is easy to disprove AGW as claimed by contrarians.

As per NOAA,( http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/2/), NOAA is using an algorithm, not historical data to come up with records and climate temperatures. If that is so, then all NOAA data is suspect and therefore can not be used for any scientific basis, based on NOAA data, that can affirm or discredit global warming/climate change, which are both propaganda terms, not scientific terms. Climate change is as precise as " if you don't like the weather here, wait 10 minutes and it will change", which is a phrase used everywhere. Jack Donaldson, Tyler, Texas

If global warming exist. You and I would be dead. The human eyes can not function in heat and extreme pollution. Ultra Violet rays will burn the very skin off so painfully due to its high Beta Radiation levels. The hole in the Ozone can be made up. If the Hole was so bad You say it is. The penguins will be blind. Not by cataracts, but, the very retina will be burnt. The epidermis is to thin for UV rays. I am guaranteeing Billions of people will die If globle warming is real.

Dr. Keating, your obvious prejudice and response proves my point that your entire "contest" is like you, a fraud. Honestly, do you even have $10,000 to your name? You can't prove you have set aside $10,000 for this "contest" can you?

All you are trying to do is create a "buzz" to get your name in the press so someone will hire you to conduct bogus climate research; and to promote your book. So sad and pathetic. Did anyone hire you after your contract ended (fired) back in 2006 with the University of South Dakota as a non-tenured professor? Your biography shows no employers since USD and not one story lists your current employer. 57 years old and unemployed? But I give you credit for this attempt to create a buzz to get a job. Bravo on the approach.

And last time I looked, it is YOU who is running this contest and got the press, not a "denier," so put up or shut up. Post an image of a bank account statement with $10,000.

Global warming is not man-made. Increasing Volcanic activity gives; a clue to the fact that Magma is rising closer to the earth's surface. This makes' more Methane gas readings. Climate change is from this also- the earth's crust is heating up; making the ocean warmer, the air warmer. Thus the weather heats' up around the globe.

Volcanic activity is has been pretty steady for many decades. We can measure the amount of CO2 coming from volcanic activity and it is very small (millions of tons) compared to human emissions (billions of tons).

If the oceans were being heated by the Earth then we would see them getting warmer from the bottom up. What we see is that they are getting warmer from the top down. That means the heating source is above the oceans - the atmosphere.

Dr. Keating; you totally glossed over the heat & CO2 contributions made by UNDERWATER volcanoes and underwater VENTS. Heat & CO2 RISES not sinks in the oceans. No IPCC report acknowledges this impact.

If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Underwater volcanic activity is CONSTANT and ONGOING. http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

(not counting underwater vents)

Only recently have climate "experts" suggested the ocean is warming, only because all their climate models are WRONG and they needed another cry wolf story as to a reason. Ergo the oceans are "warming" because of global warming. Funny how all the experts missed something as small as the world's oceans as a variable in their climate models.

Clearly common sense dictates the oceans play a major role in global heat transference, hence, we have hurricanes. Again, funny how the climate scientists do truly understand the role of the oceans.

I am not aware that I glossed over anything. Underwater volcanoes and vents are considered. If they were the cause of, or even contributors to, global warming we would see the oceans warming from the bottoms up. We don't see that, The oceans are warming from the top down, which means the heat source is at the top of the ocean, not the bottom.

Dr. Keating, I have the IPCC report in front of me, not seeing where UNDERWATER volcanic activity and vents are considered, please provide me a specific page number in the report for reference.

PS. Not aware of any study checking the ocean temperature from the bottom up, please point me to where I can find a comprehensive study of temperature from the ocean bottom of least 20,000 feet and up.

PSS. The oceans are "warming from the top down" because that is where the data is being collected.

I submit that it is not whether Global Warming exists or not, but whether it is actually a danger to humans, animals, and the planet. In addition whether the proposed solutions reduce or increase risk.

Let's start by stating some basic points that hopefully we can all agree upon:1. Climatologists acknowledge that Earth has always gone through cycles of cooling and warming, proven in ice cores. 2. Climatologists agree that humans, livestock, cars, and industry emit Co2 gasses.3. Climatologists agree that ice and trees both soak up Co2 gasses, functioning as a built in air cleaner. Therefore, more ice equals cooling and less ice equals heating.4. The intensity level of the Solar cycle can either create a warming or cooling effect.5. Volcanic eruptions release of sulfur dioxide has a cooling effect.6. Increased population can have a warming effect and decreased population can have a cooling effect.7. NASA has reported that we are currently in a reduced solar output cycle.

Now let's discuss some things that we may or may not agree upon:1. NASA has stated that there is an ongoing 17 year pause in global warming. Not that some warming isn't still occurring but that it is at a greatly reduced rate. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record

2. Sea ice markedly increased this last winter. Therefore, more C02 was stored which equals cooling.

3. The Little Ice Age period of AD 1350- 1850 created increased cold and precipitation with a sea temperature decrease of 1 degree. This was brought on by reduced solar activity, increased volcanic activity, ocean circulation, and reduced the population by millions from famine and the black death.

So, my argument is that we currently have the climate cooling activities of reduced solar cycle activity, increased ice formation, and harsher winters which resulted in deaths of both humans (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/08/3132591/polar-vortex-deaths/ ) and livestock (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3729/20130829/snow-blanketing-south-america-kills-250-000-alpacas-5-people.htm) ( http://www.wunderground.com/news/south-dakota-cattle-deaths-update-winter-storm-atlas-left-more-dead-first-thought-20131018 ) as well as crop losses due to numerous polar vortex events. So, if we have entered into a reduced solar activity cycle like the Maunder Minimum; which caused massive animal, human and crop deaths - why are we not in a Little Ice Age? Sure everyone noticed this past winter the abnormally low temperatures and the impact on the livestock and crops. However, it was far from an ice age. I believe the Global Warming Advocates have the answer: it is due to increased human-caused emissions. The Co2 released by overpopulation, livestock, cars, and industry have kept the temperatures raised and subsequently reduced the severity of the impact of global cooling. Millions of people died worldwide during the Little Ice Age and the impacts were the greatest threat to countries and their people. It has been shown that the Industrial Revolutions output of soot contributed to end the Little Ice Age based on ice cores. http://www.nature.com/news/how-soot-killed-the-little-ice-age-1.13650 Perhaps Co2 emissions are the solution to preventing another Ice Age die-off event due to reduced solar activity and/or increased volcanic activity.

Therefore, I propose that under global cooling circumstances that sustained Co2 emissions would actually save human and animal life and that lowering emissions could intensify cooling and cause additional deaths. One must acknowledge that reducing Co2 emissions is not a blanket solution and is dependent upon whether we have a cooling or warming effect.

We agree on most things. Ice does not absorb CO2, but traps it when it is formed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_ice_absorb_carbon_dioxide

Yes, we had a very cold winter in middle America, but other parts of the world had a very warm winter, including the US West Coast, Alaska, the Arctic Region and Siberia.

But, I think you are spot on with what you are saying and there are people that agree with you about your conclusion. See my posting about the EU2014. This is a review of a submission of a guy that claims we are heading into a new little ice age.

By the way, this was not accepted as a submission. The challenge is for deniers that say man made global warming is not real. I am providing them with a venue to show everyone how they want to prove that statement. After I get tired of lame attempts to do that, maybe I'll have a challenge for deniers to convince us that lung disease isn't bad. Oops, I meant to say a challenge for deniers to show that global warming isn't bad. Until then, you don't get to change the rules of my challenge.

I only ask if CO2 derived climate change is real, why do the fields of Transport Phenomena and Thermodynamics refute these results? When going through the math, I have found that the CO2 would have to double in atmospheric content to produce the temperature changes that are claimed. That means around 800 ppm (0.0800%), and we are far from those numbers. I can also provide textbook examples to support this claim if needed.

Because the amount of heat that CO2 absorbs is 100% and it does so in about 300 feet of the radiating surface of the earth. If you double the concentration you only have the distance that the 100% gets absorbed you don't actually add any heat. Given that 300 feet is pretty small and the atmosphere mixes it well down here at the bottom it is apparent that CO2 cannot be causing heating as it is not adding heat. Another way of looking at this is look at some of the heat flow diagrams and ask yourself where does the extra heat listed as "back radiation" come from? You can't just add heat from nowhere it has to come from one of the inputs. if you say it is the ground then you are really saying the sun is getting hotter because that is the input to the ground.

CO2 does not heat anything, it acts as a blanket to keep heat from escaping. And, you are taking the extinction distance to a untenable position. If that is all there was to it then all heat would be retained and we would incinerate. Once CO2 absorbs IR radiation, it then reradiates it back out, but in a random direction. Some will go up, some will go sideways and some will go back down. This slows the movement of the IR photons and keeps them from radiating out into space. Adding more CO2 adds new layers that will increase the number of extinction distances a photon must traverse before it can escape.

The energized CO2 cannot heat the warmer regions beneath it. CO2 can only slow the rate of the earth's heat loss. There is only so much of the sun's energy that strikes the earth's surface. It is not an infinite amount. So there will be no incineration.

Adding a piddling amount of CO2 to an already piddling amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere will not slow the earth's rate of heat loss. Absorption to the maximum has already occurred in CO2's IR absorption bands. Convection will take care of the energized particles of CO2.

Do tell me how long the CO2 molecule holds onto the absorbed IR energy before releasing it? Is it not in competition with the big GHG known as water or water vapour over a number of its IR absorption bands?

If CO2 cannot heat up the earth's surface, then why do you keep speaking of this thermal runaway?

The moon receives as much of the sun's light per square meter as the earth. Now why are its temperatures absent an atmosphere so much greater than earth's with its GHG laden atmosphere? According to you, the moon's temperatures should be far less than earth's, but they are not.

I have posted these questions several times. You seem adept at ignoring them. My most recent has disappeared.

If CO2 is such a potent retainer of heat energy, why are there no CO2 heat generators in operation throughout the world. Just surround a small flame with an enclosure containing 390 ppm of CO2 or more, and one should easily see the room heat up to incredible degrees. If 390 ppm can incinerate the earth, think of what 500,000 ppm in some enclosure can do with a campfire!

G. Marshall, CO2 absorbs IR photons at two main wavelengths. It's mainly a vibrational mode of absorption that will re-emit an IR photon which can be measured by the recoil moment of the carbon-oxygen bond distance. Whether (or when) a particular molecule of CO2 will actually both absorb and re-emit an IR photon of a resonating wavelength is anybody's guess. This follows the strange world of Quantum Electrodynamic Theory which is one of the most thoroughly tested principles in all of physics. When there is a large number of CO2 molecules present, however, the statistical probability that CO2 will absorb and re-emit IR photons becomes overwhelmingly demonstrable. Recoil studies have been carried out that indicate CO2 can absorb and re-emit IR photons at the proper wavelengths anywhere from 100s to 1000s of times EVERY second. Think about that for a moment and get a handle on the implications. Do some of these re-emitted photons make it out of the earth's troposphere without being re-absorbed and then again re-emitted? Probably, but the statistical likelihood that a large fraction of these IR photons are directed back toward the earth's surface where they are absorbed by the oceans or directly heat any objects they encounter is not an effect that can rationally be argued.

In natural systems, signals in the ppm range can have huge effects. When you understand the mechanism of how CO2 absorbs and emits thermal photons it becomes clear why a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in such a short time span as 150 years has consequences.

Nowhere, in any proxy going back the past 20 million plus years, is there any CO2 signal's that correlate to such a rapid increase in CO2 concentration. It is really unprecedented. And coupled with the fact we can determine, through isotopic analysis, what fraction of this increased CO2 is from anthropogenic activities, the cause of the recent rise in land/surface temperature during the existence of the instrumental record points to a main culprit: Humans and their activities on the surface of this planet.

Here's a final perspective on how much a 1.6 degree increase in the average temperature of the planet's atmosphere means in terms that can be understood by anyone. Take the total energy output of the United States for a single year and then multiply the total joules of one year by about 4 million and you would have enough thermal energy to raise the total volume of the atmosphere by 1.6 degrees. Those busy CO2 molecules at ppm concentrations needed only about a 150 years to do what the USA would need 4 million years to do.

Quantum Electrodynamic Theory is fundamental to understanding the mechanism of how CO2 can warm the atmosphere.

No. I am not saying any of what you are asking. Your position that atmospheric CO2 is "negligible" has no foundation. Concentrations (signals) in natural systems in the ppm range can have huge effects. Your statement about "cooler" CO2 "warming up the already warmer and far greater masses of land and water of the earth" has no meaning in any real sense.

Temperature is the average momentum of the constituent molecules/atoms comprising a system. That's what a thermometer is actually showing using an arbitrary scale. If a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon and then re-emits this photon toward say a surface rock that is at a higher temperature than the CO2 molecule, that photon with its inherent energy will hit the rock and add to the total average momentum of all the atoms/molecules comprising the rock. This addition will be miniscule, but nonetheless, measurable.

Sorry, but you are confusing the "temperature" of the CO2 in the atmosphere with the mechanism by which CO2 absorbs and emits thermal photons. All it takes is for a photon of the right wavelength to encounter the electron probability field surrounding the molecule for the photon to be absorbed and re-emitted. It has nothing to do with the temperature of the CO2 molecule. And not to pile on but do you understand that the photon can be even a meter away from the CO2 molecule and still be absorbed? Welcome to the strange world of quantum dynamics and field entanglements.

I strongly suggest that you revisit the four laws of thermodynamics (yes, there are 4 laws, not just 3) so you understand what "temperature" really is.

I am speaking of heat, not energy. There are certainly flows of energy. I am speaking of one instance in which the colder particles in the atmosphere heat the warmer particles, land masses and oceans, below them. No such phenomenon has ever been discovered in the physical sciences. If you should disagree then please do submit such an instance.

Sorry. But I am at the bar. I am speaking of heat transfer or if you wish net energy transfer. So do particles in higher energy states transfer more energy to those in lower energy states or is it the opposite? I believe its the former. Which means the earth transfer heat to the atmosphere, lower regions then to the upper regions til it radiates put into space. Which means AGW is a fraud.

Economart, by colder particles you mean atmospheric CO2? Look, energy from the sun from IR to Ultraviolet passes through our atmosphere, strikes the surface of the ground or water, and one of two things happen. If the photon is at the proper wavelength the matter being hit by a certain photon will absorb the photon (heating). This additional energy causes a net game in the momentum or vibrational energy of the matter's constituent atoms/molecules and the object's temperature rises. Or, the photon is not absorbed but scattered away at an angle. The matter that absorbed the photon can also emit a photon (cooling) which lowers the vibrational energy of the constituent atoms/molecules.

These outgoing photons (were talking about IR wavelengths or thermal energy) also can do one of two things. They can be absorbed by the column of air through which they are traveling (absorbed by CO2, for example) and cause a net gain in the atmospheric CO2's momentum which again is heating, or, they can pass right through the atmosphere and escape into space "unmolested" if you will. As far as CO2, though, this energy gain can then be re-emitted as another photon. Each CO2 molecule is absorbing 100s to possibly thousands of IR photons each second. If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere an eneormous fraction of the energy radiated from the surface would be lost to space and there would be no atmospheric heating (think our moon). The surface of the planet would be hot as hell during the day, just like the moon, and again like the moon, hundreds of degree below freezing at night.

To answer your question, the sun which is at a much higher energy state than our planet's surface is transferring it's heat energy to our planet when it's electromagnetic energy strikes the planet. CO2 prevents the thermal energy being radiated from the planet's surface from merely escaping into space. At higher CO2 levels more of this heat energy being radiated from the surface is retained by the atmosphere over time and we experience this as warming.

Is the net energy flow going to be from the warmer elements on the earth's surface to the cooler atmospheric particles above or from the cooler particles above to the warmer elements below?

Its a very simple question. It has already been confirmed repeatedly by scientific experiment and investigation. The results are digested into a scientific law. I know the answer to this question. Every physical scientist worth his salt knows the answer to this question.

Trying to keep it simple, let's look at the surface which has been warmed up by the Sun. It will then loose energy in the form of IR radiation. How fast it looses heat is a function of the temperature differential between it and the system adjacent. If the atmosphere is cold, the surface will lose heat at a very high rate. If the atmosphere is hot, it will lose heat at a slower rate.

The question you're asking about the relative temperatures of the earth and atmosphere is, in this case, beside the point. If it were the CO2 itself that were heating the earth, then it would matter what temperature it was at, but as Dr. Keating has pointed out several times, CO2 itself does not heat anything. It merely acts as a blanket to prevent the heat of the earth from escaping to space as efficiently. It can do this at any temperature.

Also, to address your question about the temperature on the moon, while the average temperature of the half of the moon facing the Sun is ~+123 degrees Celsius, the other half is typically <-230 degrees Celsius. This is the result of not having an atmospheric blanket to distribute heat from the sun and is what the Earth was like before our atmosphere formed.

Finally, your are only considering half of the story when you say that maximum absorption has occurred in the spectral bands where CO2 absorbs energy. The reason is that the CO2 atoms don't hold onto that energy (or not much of it). Most of it is re-released at IR wavelengths. When this happens, it is sent out in all directions. Some heads back down to earth, some to the side and some up towards space. Those re-emitted photons will often get re-absorbed and the process starts all over again. The more CO2 atoms are out there, the less likely it will be for that photon headed out to space to make it without being absorbed in the atmosphere or sent back to earth. If you want proof that we have not come close to reaching any kind of saturation point with our 400ppm of CO2, just look at Venus, where the atmosphere is almost totally (96%) CO2 and the temperature on the surface is hotter than on Mercury despite being much further from the Sun (hot enough to melt lead as many people like to point out).

But you don't have to make your entire atmosphere out of CO2 to cause important changes. It only takes a small change in the net energy balance to cause large changes in temperature over time. Think of a bathtub with a faucet and a drain that are the same size. the level in the tub stays the same right? Now if you put a tiny TINY blockage in the drain and wait ... it will take a while but eventually that tub will start to fill up, right? Of course to continue this analogy, increasing the input from the sun (larger faucet) could also cause that - but since the 1950's, the solar output has been decreasing, and even before that the amount of temperature increase was too much to be explained by solar variations.

Of course our situation is far worse than the bathtub analogy because our planet is much more complex than that and as CO2 increases and temperature increases, other feedbacks come into play, like increasing water vapour, melting ice (lowering total reflectance) melting permafrost (releasing methane) and all the rest.

I don't have an account here, but for the record my name is Paul Cottle

So the CO2 in the atmosphere will not warm the earth to a temperature greater than sun had. It will merely slow the rate at which the earth loses IR energy. Is this correct? If so, then there can be no such thing as AGW.

I enjoyed your explanation of the moon. So without a GHG laden atmosphere we here on earth would be incinerated when the sun showed up or we would freeze to death in its absence. But wirh an atmosphere we enjoy a great moderation of those extremes. To further mitigate those moderate extremes we should be blessed with even a thicker atmosphere. Thank you.

Of course everything has limits. Venus has a thicker atmosphere, but you wouldn't want to live there!

And to hopefully save Dr. Keating time responding to you I'll answer your question to him as well. If you put on a blanket it doesn't heat you. It just keeps your own heat from escaping as well. Nevertheless, the net result is that your temperature goes up. It's the same with CO2, except instead of the earth's own heat, it's the the solar heat reflected (or absorbed and re-emitted) by the earth. Throughout your posts you're making a classic mistake made even by many scientists: you're confusing heat with temperature.

Kind of getting caught in the weeds of the analogy, but ummm ... yes? That is what blankets do - what do you think they're for? Of course our internal temperature is regulated by all sorts of metabolic processes that try to keep an even keel, but even then your skin temperature will rise when you increase the insulation around it and also your internal temperature will go up by a few tenths of a degree. This is why they wrap people who have hypothermia in blankets. To bring up their body temperature. and yes, if you put another blanket over the first one, the temperature will rise even more.

Hi, I just read through all these. As a physicist, it is clear that the reason for much of the confusion is your lack of understanding of basic physics, and it is hard for people responding to you to even know what you are talking about. I don't think Chris is going to respond to you if you can't even admit that blankets make you warmer. That is denialism on a whole new level: denying warming itself.

I have put forward the fact that the daytime temperatures of the earth with its GHG laden atmosphere are far inferior to those of the Moon, which bears no atmosphere. You have admitted that CO2 cannot warm the earth.

Mr. Keating, my $10,000 counter challenge to you is still in effect. I will gladly write you a check for $10,000 if you can prove, as Al Gore presented in his film An Inconvenient Truth, that the ice core records from Vostok and elsewhere actually present a continuous record of past climate, and that at no time did any warm periods occur in which ice melted and obscured those records.

I do not work with the ice core samples and I can not say one way or the other from personal experience that the ice core data is continuous. But, I can say this, the ice core is not the only proxy we have. There are several proxies and they are all compared. Plus, a great deal of effort is made to date the proxies to as much accuracy as is possible. If the ice melted, as you claim, I would expect to see a break in the data as compared to other proxies and the timeline. To the best of my knowledge, no such discontinuity exists in the data record. That is not to say there are no discontinuities in the ice record (as I said, I don't work with it), but the timeline from all proxies does not have any major discontinuities that I am aware of.

By "other proxies" I guess you mean tree rings. That only goes back a couple thousand years and those don't work either. A tree is not a thermometer. Temperature is not the only thing that affects the thickness of tree rings. Precipitation and CO2 content are factors as well. But what "other proxies" do you refer to that go back hundreds of thousands of years?

"If the ice melted, as you claim, I would expect to see a break in the data as compared to other proxies and the timeline."

OK. Where would you expect to see that and what would you expect it to look like?

Mr. Keating, the ice core record lies at the heart of the idea of man made global warming. That is the reason the ice core data was used in the crucial scene in Al Gore's film when gets on a lift that goes up to the ceiling to tell us all that CO2 has never been as high in hundreds of thousands of years.

The entire global warming scam rests on this assumption that the ice core record represents a continuous record of past climate. I have offered you substantial evidence it does not and can not be so. You have offered that you couldn't say "from personal experience" and that it does "not have any major discontinuities that I am aware of." That simply isn't good enough. You need to prove it.

There are many proxies. Since you seem to be so interested in this topic I suggest you do a little homework. Here's one source of information:https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/primer_proxy.html

I don't think it will do you any good because you really seem to think you have found some kind of 'Ah, ha!' moment and I don't think it would ever be possible to change your mind.

You are wrong about everything depends on ice cores. But, so what? We all agree (hopefully) that there were changes in the climate in the past. What you can't show is that there is any kind of link to natural cycles today to explain the warming trend. In fact, we are in a natural cooling cycle. The warming is due to man made effects.

If your proof that man made global warming is not real is that Al Gore made some mistakes, then you are no more valid then the person that claimed it isn't real because of a George Carlin comedy routine (I'm not making that up. http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/10000-challenge-submission-george-carlin.html).

Don't be ridiculous. You could easily change my mind if you had any evidence. The link you provided offers no proxy data past 12,000 years. So there is nothing to back up the ice core record. Yet there is plenty of evidence to refute it. And if you go through the volumes of papers regarding proxy data, it is a giant game of head scratching as to why it doesn't match. You can also find researchers of ice cores such as Richard Alley discussing "abrupt climate change" suggesting the earth could come out of an ice age in as little as ten years.As detailed on my blog: www.theiceageishere.blogspot.com this is simply not possible. The bottom line is that ice is not good evidence when it isn't there because it melted away.

If we use proxy data from coastal caves for example, it appears sea level and temperature have been dropping for exactly 81,000 years. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/860.full Again, direct evidence that refutes the ice core records, and backs up my claim.

And yes, this is an Ah ha moment. If you have to throw out the current understanding of Paleoclimatology and its holy measuring stick, the ice core record, and all of its terminology, like: Holocene, Eemian, Interglacial, then what authority can you possibly claim to know what the climate will do in the future?

In the study of proxy data, including the ice core records, there is also much effort to explain its odd shape in respect to the Milankovitch cycles, as they seem to appear, but overall do not match. If we understand that these Milankovitch cycles are mated to a much larger cycle, as detailed on my blog, the shape of the ice cores makes perfect sense. I would also like to point out as I'm sure you already know, changes in CO2 follow the changes in temperature, not the other way around. So CO2 has never been a factor in driving the climate, and won't be in the future. Because CO2 does not alter the climate, man made climate change (by CO2) is not possible.

The surface of Venus is hot because it is under more atmospheric pressure than the surface of planet earth. Despite the much greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus, at the point in its atmosphere where the pressure is similar to earth, the temperature is similar to earth.

As to your question of why ice proxies show rising CO2 with rising temperature: 70% our planet is covered in oceans. The ocean holds 50 times the amount of CO2 than is in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 the ocean is able to hold is dependent on temperature. As the ocean temperature rises, it can hold less CO2 and out-gasses to the atmosphere. As the ocean cools it can hold more CO2 and pulls it back in. The rise and fall of CO2 content in our atmosphere correlates with temperature across ice proxies because it is caused by the rise and fall of temperature, not the other way around.

In physics, it's known as Henry's Law: "At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid."

But I can explain it to you with a real world example as a cold Coca-Cola having more fizz, and going flat as it warms up. Temperature is the cause, CO2 is the effect.

To say that trace gas CO2 is driving the climate makes as much sense as declaring that winter is caused by leaves falling from the trees.

Your position is that CO2 has no role (and never had a role) in the thermal atmospheric conditions of the planet Venus other than from pressure due to weight...you are in the smallest of minorities on that one, but then there's this gem:

"at the point in its atmosphere where the pressure is similar to earth, the temperature is similar to earth."

Why yes it is . . . 60 kilometers above the surface of Venus. You'd think that more of those IR photons radiating from the surface would make their way through the 60 kilometers or so of mostly CO2 comprised atmosphere since CO2 doesn't play a role in keeping things toasty on the surface. You would at least agree that radiative energy from the sun has, in fact, struck the surface of Venus, right?

And so, Iceman, what is blocking all of that thermal energy on the surface from making it's way out into space? The spectrographic composition of our sister planet is widely known. Since it's not CO2 playing a role, what is? Take a good long look at the atmospheric composition of Venus and tell me what constituent(s), at present mass fractions, is/are responsible for the mess that Venus finds herself in.

Here's another gem:

"The rise and fall of CO2 content in our atmosphere correlates with temperature across ice proxies because it is caused by the rise and fall of temperature, not the other way around."

This denier argument is so full of non-scientific reasoning that it is truly breathtaking. It is also the reason, btw, that you cannot provide me the raw data of any ice core proxies that correlate to temperatures lower than today's level with CO2 higher than today's level.

And finally here is one last remarkable statement by you:

"To say that trace gas CO2 is driving the climate makes as much sense as declaring that winter is caused by leaves falling from the trees."

Iceman, Iceman, ppm signals can have huge effects in natural systems. In fact, most naturally occurring negative feedback mechanisms respond with considerable strength to signals in the ppm range. Hell, my labs ion trap mass spectrometer is calibrated at the picogram scale and most of our analyses are carried out in ppb. Ppm analytes are just too damn concentrated more times than not and overload columns not too mention the detector itself. Who wants to constantly keep cleaning and re cleaning all of those parabolic/toroidal magnetic lenses making up the source all the time?

The point being that ppm are not necessarily "trace" amounts in any meaningful scientific context. That is a terrible argument that is not supported, at all, by modern science.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up Arrenhius. You remember, that guy who said the surface of Venus had a climate like a rain forest in the congo? He was only off by about 800 degrees. The global warming alarmists don't like to mention that one when they bring him up as their patron saint.

"Your position is that CO2 has no role (and never had a role) in the thermal atmospheric conditions of the planet Venus other than from pressure due to weight" Nowhere in my response did I say that. But yes, you should take into account 93 times the atmospheric pressure of earth is not an apples to apples comparison.

But since you decided to jump on this thread. How about you try to answer my original question to Mr. Keating? I'll even extend the $10,000 challenge. All you have to do is prove that ice core data from Vostok and other locations show continuous records of past climate, and that at no time was it warm enough for ice to melt away and obscure those records.

No, I'm not an alarmist at all. I am specifically looking at your position that CO2 does not play a roll in any temperature increase of our planet's troposphere. A decrease in outgoing IR at CO2 absorption regions over time have been measured by AURA, IRIS, IMG, AQUA, etc. The data from these satellites has been scrutinized and been the subject of numerous papers in peer reviewed journals/publications. Even Roy Spencer--a blue-blood for the climate skeptic community--has posted the following on his site:

"I would remind folks that the NASA AIRS instrument on the Aqua satellite has actually measured the small decrease in IR emission in the infrared bands affected by CO2 absorption, which they use to “retrieve” CO2 concentration from the data. Less energy leaving the climate system means warming under almost any scenario you can think of. Conservation of energy, folks. It’s the law."

There is also a concomitant increase in long wave radiation striking the planet's surface which has also been measured by a multitude of sensors throughout the long wave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is happening at the same time we've seen a decrease in the sun's radiative output. What is changing in our atmosphere to account for this counter intuitive result?

Your claim that CO2 only follows temperature, and cannot contribute to a temperature increase, is shown to be false and yet you cling to this belief without any supportive data.

As for me being an alarmist...I make no claim, of any kind, regarding what the effects of a warming planet might have on humans and the various ecosystems. I focus solely on the cause of warming. The effects (whatever they might be) I'll leave to those scientists who have far greater education/understanding in such areas.

Mr. Keating's challenge is ridiculous, because it impossible to disprove a negative. Nobody can prove that CO2 has no effect on the climate. But what we can easily see from the data, is that its effect has been grossly overstated. Every climate model failed because they assumed a certain degree of climate sensitivity to CO2 and always to the warming side. The fact is the effect might be positive, it might be relatively neutral, and it may even be negative by decreasing the content of water vapor. There is simply no way to prove it is not doing this one way or the other, and it has certainly never been proven that a few extra parts per million will cause any significant warming.

Did you, for even a second, consider that he might not be right? Did you, for even a second, consider giving NASA and NOAA the benefit of the doubt and wait for more information? Or, did you automatically jump to the conclusion that this was all truth and two of the most respectable organizations in the world were faking the data?

Dr. Keating, you forget that NASA and NOAA have issues with data and models. Do you not read?

Second paragraph: "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998." Is WRONG. The warmest year info is bogus and proven wrong in 2007 when NASA acknowledged FAULTY data was used in previous claims. "NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980. 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006."(washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-year-1934/)

As to NOAA, using 20 predictive models and supercomputers, NOAA can't predict a hurricane track accurately out past 72 hours.

@Christopher Keating in regards to :http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/, I would not fully trust any government agency reporting or stating on a webpage as accurate.Look at the CDC and the information they have on their webpage is not only incorrect but also in many cases out of date.The government publicizes what they want you to believe and it is not necessary true of whats really happening.

This claim comes from a blog called RealScience that has been shown before to falsify its claims. The issue of NASA/NOAA/Climate Center of Your Choice tampering or falsifying data has been made before and has always been shown to be bunk. It is an example of how far deniers will go to score points. They are not interested in a scientific debate, they want their side to 'win' and they will do what they need to to achieve that goal. Until this claim of data tampering is reviewed by credible sources (Steve Goddard is not credible), then I will not consider it to be credible.

Dr. Keating, liberal retort # 5. Attack the denier's source of information and avoid addressing the facts from the source. Where is YOUR objectivity? You blindly believe anyone who agrees with your position and resort to standard liberal attacks on those who have a different opinion.

You forget that NASA and NOAA have issues with data and models. Do you not read?

Second paragraph: "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998." Is WRONG. The warmest year info is bogus and proven wrong in 2007 when NASA acknowledged FAULTY data was used in previous claims. "NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980. 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006."(washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-year-1934/)

As to NOAA, using 20 predictive models and supercomputers, NOAA can't predict a hurricane track accurately out past 72 hours.

Does your liberal methodology for debunking the truth that there is no man made global warming go something like this?:

1. Avoid answering any questions and use the deflection talking points below2. Ignore facts and make emotional arguments3. State we need to take action for our children4. Attack the denier in a personal manner5. Attack the denier's source of information and avoid addressing the facts from the source6. Present worst case theoretical scenarios as if they are fact7. Utilize supporting blogs whenever possible8. Claim the high ground and moral authority9. Emphasize that climate change is extraordinarily scary and happening now10. Emphasize that the experts know best and people should trust the experts11. Utilize phrases "peer reviewed" and "peer reviewed journal" to give credibility to your information source12. Keep citing "97% of climate scientists agree" as much as possible when you have no clue who these 97% actually are13. Vilify anyone who challenges your position, call them "deniers" "loons" “trolls” " tea baggers" and similar14. Copy and paste from your list of talking points regardless if you understand the information15. When out of options, always invoke FOX News; Rush; Hannity; Beck; O'Reilly; Koch Brothers; Big Oil; Tea Party; GOPees16. Combine any of the above into a reply in any argument

Anonymous, maybe you should understand the mechanism by which CO2 absorbs IR photons. I previously posted this but you seem to be off on such tangents that you need to focus more on the root cause. Regarding CO2 absorption/emission of IR photons it has been verified that it's mainly a vibrational mode of absorption that will re-emit an IR photon which can be measured by the recoil moment of the carbon-oxygen bond distance. Whether (or when) a particular molecule of CO2 will actually both absorb and re-emit an IR photon of a resonating wavelength is anybody's guess. This follows the strange world of Quantum Electrodynamic Theory which is one of the most thoroughly tested principles in all of physics. When there is a large number of CO2 molecules present, however, the statistical probability that CO2 will absorb and re-emit IR photons becomes overwhelmingly demonstrable. Recoil studies have been carried out that indicate CO2 can absorb and re-emit IR photons at the proper wavelengths anywhere from 100s to 1000s of times EVERY second. Think about that for a moment and get a handle on the implications. Do some of these re-emitted photons make it out of the earth's troposphere without being re-absorbed and then again re-emitted? Probably, but the statistical likelihood that a large fraction of these IR photons are directed back toward the earth's surface where they are absorbed by the oceans or directly heat any objects they encounter is not an effect that can rationally be argued.

In natural systems, signals in the ppm range can have huge effects. When you understand the mechanism of how CO2 absorbs and emits thermal photons it becomes clear why a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in such a short time span as 150 years has consequences.

Nowhere, in any proxy going back the past 20 million plus years, is there any CO2 signal's that correlate to such a rapid increase in CO2 concentration. It is really unprecedented. And coupled with the fact we can determine, through isotopic analysis, what fraction of this increased CO2 is from anthropogenic activities, the cause of the recent rise in land/surface temperature during the existence of the instrumental record points to a main culprit: Humans and their activities on the surface of this planet.

Here's a final perspective on how much a 1.6 degree increase in the average temperature of the planet's atmosphere means in terms that can be understood by anyone. Take the total energy output of the United States for a single year and then multiply the total joules of one year by about 4 million and you would have enough thermal energy to raise the total volume of the atmosphere by 1.6 degrees. Those busy CO2 molecules at ppm concentrations needed only about a 150 years to do what the USA would need 4 million years to do.

Quantum Electrodynamic Theory is fundamental to understanding the mechanism of how CO2 can warm the atmosphere.

Anonymous, you don't seem to have a grasp--at all--of what is actually happening with the earth's climate. I've read through your posts and it is clear that you are trying to use what you think are convincing arguments by misrepresenting data to support a belief. The increase of land/sea temps the last 150 years is either caused by natural forcings/mechanisms, or, there is something else that cannot be attributable to natural cyclic phenomena.

There is nothing that has been shown by anyone on either side of this "debate," through the application of the scientific method, that has resulted in verifiable and reproducible data that allows the reasonable interpretation that the gigatonnes of CO2 man had released into the atmosphere has no effect on the earth's energy budget.

In thousands of laboratories every day infrared spectrometers are used to study the absorption spectra of thousands of different molecules, CO2 being just one of those thousands. Science has an excellent understanding of CO2 absorption spectra at IR and other wavelengths. What the denier crowd needs to do is first, and this is fundamental to this entire debate, produce data that contradicts CO2's ability to absorb/emit thermal photons, or, produce data that can be verified and reproduced by independent sources that acknowledges that although CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is a a primary contributor for the retention of thermal energy in the atmosphere, the excess thermal energy that is produced by increasing CO2 does not make any contribution to land/sea temperatures because this excess thermal energy is negated by some other mechanism that climate scientists have ignored or don't understand.

It's not just 30K on the line here. Any convincing "proof" where the data cannot be interpreted as indicating anything other than man made global warming is wrong would be a lock for a Nobel Prize in Science.

Everything that I've read so far presented by individuals trying to claim the 30K has been, I'll be kind here, without any scientific merit. On a humorous note, it is clear that many of the individuals posting their "proofs" actually have no idea what scientific methodology is all about. Personal beliefs and ideologies must be tossed aside BEFORE engaging in the process of scientific discovery. If they aren't discarded, the results of any experiment, study, etc, will always fail to be persuasive.

G Holden, your fixation on CO2 is misplaced for a variety of reasons, mainly because water vapor is the largest "greenhouse gas" impacting the climate, and gosh, oceans (water changes to water vapor by evaporation) cover just over 70% of the Earth. Yet somehow climate scientists claim a tiny portion of land produces enough CO2 that has a greater impact than water vapor from the oceans. Unfortunately, governments and the UN cannot tax the oceans for producing water vapor. Perhaps the ocean can receive carbon credits for consumption of CO2.

See my three part submission below on how applying the scientific method proves man made global warming is a hoax.

Look, you are confusing cause and effect here. I read through your three part submission and I will only say that while your enthusiasm for your position is clear, your attempt to follow scientific methodology to arrive at a conclusion based on data is not persuasive, at all.

G. Holden, obviously then you are not familiar with the scientific method as my submission meets the standards, 100% factually based, simple to understand, AND REPLICABLE. You can take pretty much any climate study and calculate the margin of error yourself. You can read the GAO report on flawed weather monitoring devices, and calculate the margin of error yourself. No laboratory equipment needed, no PhD is physics required, 5th grade math calculations at best.

The challenge is to prove manmade global warming is a hoax. I did that using simple scientific method, examples, information sources cited by Dr. Keating, etc. You simply cannot have a true picture of anything if your data is significantly flawed, and you ignore the obvious effect of Nature - which the IPCC does. If the foundation of the building is built on quicksand, the building will sink.

Examples of my submissions to the IPCC on their last draft:

- The ranges used are too broad to be meaningful indicating great doubt on the accuracy of the calculations and data used.- Figure SPM.7: projections are too far out to have any accuracy and no margin of error is stated- Simply absurd and scientifically unsubstantiated statements desired to plant fear into people's minds.- Climate models used by the IPCC failed to account for this energy absorption by the oceans.- The findings of 0.11C PER decade (0.011C per year) are insignificant and within the statistical margin of error to be meaningless.- Report does not take into account the effect of tectonic plate shifting impacting any perceived rise in sea level.- The ± ranges used of 570 ± 110 GtCO2 & 585 ± 330 GtCO2 are too broad to be meaningful indicating great doubt on the accuracy of the calculations and data used.- Untrue and misleading statements. There are no such terms as "extreme weather" and "climate events" listed in any meteorological dictionary. Terms are subjective as are any conclusions formed using such terms.- yada, yada, yada.....

My submission for a logical proof that global warming is NOT caused by human activity. Please note that I teach graduate level logical reasoning and analytical problem solving. My argument is based on a logical proof, which falls within the realm of the "scientific method". This will be done by using data collected by Mr. Keating himself, so there can be no question as to the soundness and validity of my argument. My argument has 3 basic steps:1) Measure global temperature changes starting from the date of your (Mr. Keating) choice (50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200, etc - your choice) to the present. Write down the rate of change of the temperature rise.2) Measure the global output of carbon from 2 different ranges: start at any date you want go up to 1980. Then measure the carbon output from 1980 to the present. Write down the rate of change from those two different date-ranges.3) Compare the rates of rising temperatures to the rates of increased carbon emissions. Whatever data you use, you will see that as the rates of carbon emissions go up, the rates of temperature rise goes down. Yes, temperatures are still rising, but at a much slower rate than carbon emissions.

In other words, as carbon emissions go up, temperature goes down. The data is crystal clear.

I have just proved that carbon emissions, if anything, actually lower global temperatures. Is this a bad thing? YES. Should we work to reduce carbon emissions? PERHAPS. But I still dis-proved man-made global warming. I fully expect the $10,000 prize, assuming that I'm the first to put this argument forward. I have already presented this argument to several law professors the University of North Carolina, who all agree that my argument is sound and that your offer is legally binding.

I look forward to hearing from you. I can be contacted via my website listed below.

This is actually a good example to use in your classroom. It is an example of a false argument. The reason it is false is that you have selected a isolated part to the globe to qualify as "global" warming while leaving out the biggest piece of the equation in the hope that the audience doesn't notice. Where is ocean warming in your logic? Show me that the "globe" hasn't been warming as CO2 levels increase.

Thanks for your reply. My argument accounts for all the warming you want to include in your data, including Ocean Warming. Because my argument is based in logic, I don't need to provide my own data - I can use the data from folks who disagree with my position. Once again, the data is clear: the last 30 years has seen a massive increase in the rate of carbon emissions while the warming rate has been stable. This clearly shows that carbon emissions either have no effect on warming or have a cooling effect. Check it yourself: when can I expect payment?

Alex: The last 30 years have not seen a stable temperature increase, even if we want to limit our discussion of just the surface. Even the last 15 years have seen global warming continuing with a dramatically warming ocean while the surface temperature has been warming at a slower pace. These points have all been covered in prior submissions.

You owe Alex the money. Your response is weak, close to laughable. There may be valid counter arguments, but you didn't not make them. Instead, you seek refuge in data that is at best questionable and not fully known. Try again with a better argument.

I think we need an impartial and unbiased judge for this contest! Dr. Keating, it is a fact that a judge of anything needs to be unbiased, ergo you have rigged this contest because you will never be convinced you are wrong. Sound familiar? Oh are you a "climate scientist?"

I prefer the $10,000 in $100's and $50's please, as there is no doubt in my mind your check would bounce. cottereaux@yahoo.com

I never rigged anything. If there was any 'rigging' being done it was by the deniers when they made statements to the public that were not true and they couldn't back up. All I am doing here is providing deniers a chance to come through on their own statements.

By the way, do you go to the denier challenges and demand they come up with an independent judge? Or, is it just me you do that to?

Doe, why don't you actually look up those published papers with the "97%" claim and read them? (only 2 or 3 referenced) Note how the ACTUAL number of "climate scientists" in the study; then how the 97% was calculated. (hint. it is NOT 97% of the total study population); and how many climate scientists had "no opinion" - and that number vs. the number in the 97% calculation.

The study was of published papers on climate science. Unlike medicine or law, there is no qualify bar to be a "scientist". Anyone can call themselves a scientist. The standard is, scientists that have published papers in climate science. Of those individuals, 97% agree that man made global warming is real. I can tell this is just burning up the deniers because one of the false arguments deniers keep making is that man made global warming isn't real because there is "no consensus" among scientists. Global warming doesn't care if there is a consensus or not, but deniers have lost a tool they used to deceive the public.

Dr. Keating, please continue to elaborate on how the 97% number was calculated. You know, by eliminating anyone who had less than 20 papers published - which would cover "deniers". I take it you are referring to the W. R. L. Anderegg (a graduate student), “Expert Credibility in Climate Change) the exact number of climate scientists is 903 out of over 1,300 who were published. Or did you have another 97% believe bogus study in mind?

Anderegg was a PhD student at the time in the department of Biology at Stanford University and never personally conducted any climate research. He did a skewed survey of the "believers." Starting with 1,372 climate researchers, he shrank the number down to 903 believers (97% of 908) based upon minimum 20 papers written, and by eliminating a few duplicate names from spelling errors.

"Between December 2008 and July 2009, we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: “author:fi-lastname climate”), as well as the number of times cited for each researcher’s four top-cited articles in any field (search term “climate” removed)."

"To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers."

So basically, the opinions of approximately 464 scientists (33.82% of the baseline number) were ignored.

I just love this exercise in the climate scientific method!

Lastly, Anderegg never tested any published theories and never verified any climate data. He just surveyed a cherry picked sub-sample.

How can you realistically believe that a deliberately skewed and biased sample will yield true results?

97% of NRA members believe in the 2nd Amendment & 97% of PETA members believe in eating no animal products. Sounds pretty good to me!

From another study, 66.4% of papers had NO OPINION on global warming!!!!! NO OPINION!!!! but of course they state more money is needed for further research.(sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm)

This pretty much explains it. Just because the author doesn't explicitly say "global warming is true" doesn't mean that they don't endorse the theory. It's such an essential part of climate science that it is usually assumed.

I want to take this opportunity to pose a question to you. I'm not necessarily trying to disprove global warming but rather to see if it comes from another source. This is a sincere question, and I would really appreciate your response. From what I've seen and heard it seems that global warming interest and evidence has grown somewhat exponentially in recent years. Technology has also done the same. Which is what lead me to think ( I know, very scientific...). My question to you is: Is it possible that an increase in wireless technology (use of unseen waves via cell phones, satellite, internet, etc.) is creating more kinetic particle movement in the atmosphere, therefore generating heat? It probably sounds ludicrous to some, but waves need energy to move, and nothing is 100% efficient, so where does the lost energy go? In my mind, it makes sense that the energy is lost, or absorbed in the atmosphere one way or another eventually in the form of heat. Is this even possible? Has anyone researched this? Your opinion as a physicist is highly appreciated. Thank you.

It is certainly possible that daily activity is adding to the global temperature but it is irrelevant. The total amount of human energy consumption in 2008 was about 144,000 terra-watt hours, which is equal to about 5 x 10^20 joules of energy. In comparison, we receive about 10^25 joules of energy from the Sun every day. That means it would take over 19,000 years for us to consume as much energy as the Sun sends us every day. As you can see, any contribution we can make to the total is so small as to be lost in the noise.

I am going to keep this as short and simple as possible so even a physicist will understand and not be able to poke holes in the FACTS. Everything stated supporting my claim to the $10,000 is factual.

Definition of The Scientific Method - a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

2. Relevant data are gathered: I am accepted by the IPCC as a reviewer of IPCC drafts and submit my analysis of draft reports. I reviewed and analyzed hundreds of papers on global warming; examined data used; calculated margins of error; and assessed findings and conclusions.

3. A hypothesis is formulated from these data (point #2): the margin of error in climate papers is so high, sometimes 200%+, as to be totally unacceptable by any reasonable person and any respectable scientist. It is an indisputable fact that poor quality data sets (and inaccurate computer models) used in modelling projections out 20, 30, 40, 100 years or more, absolutely result in flawed findings and conclusions. The margin of error simply multiplies the further out to go. You simply need to examine the stated range of any projected climate model prediction to see the size of the error. The inability NOAA to accurately project the path of the largest natural localized weather event, a hurricane, out past 72 hours, clearly shows that is impossible to predict climate, which is the summation of weather over a period of time, on a regional to global basis, 20 to 100+ years into the future.

4. The hypothesis is empirically tested: see below

Fact: Neither the IPCC, NOAA, nor NASA, has established any uniform guidelines for: a minimum and maximum margin of error; a stated minimum size of data elements and sets; standard for accuracy of weather data used; accuracy of the measuring equipment. (using 4 examples to keep it simple). Research papers rarely state the margin of error but hide it with a huge range in projected results, under the guise of “confidence.” cottereaux@yahoo.com

Part 2:Example: I can state with a very high confidence level (greater than 90% chance), that the 2015 hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean will have between zero (0) and 50 hurricanes. I can state with a very high confidence level (greater than 90% chance), that the 2115 hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean will have between zero (0) and 50 hurricanes. Who reading this today will be alive in 2115 to say I am incorrect?

NOAA: “Global sea level rise has been a persistent trend for decades. It is expected to continue beyond the end of this century, which will cause significant impacts in the United States. Scientists have very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meter) and no more than 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) by 2100.”

8 inches to 78 inches (6.6 feet) that range equals 875.00% MARGIN OF ERROR! WTF!Real world reality check: would you accept a car repair estimate from an expert mechanic that thoroughly examined your vehicle inside and out; then says the repairs will cost you between $800 and $7,800? Be honest Dr. Keating!

"We discuss the impacts of errors associated with spherical harmonic truncation, spatial averaging, temporal sampling, and leakage from other time-dependent signals (e.g., glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA))... The largest sources of error for Antarctica are the GIA correction, the omission of l=1 terms, nontidal changes in ocean mass, and measurement errors." Duh!!!

"For Antarctica, we report changes of −83 ± 49 and −147 ± 80 Gt/yr for two GIA models, with an acceleration of −12 ± 9 Gt/yr2 and a dominance from the southeast pacific sector of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula."

Part 3:Fact: IPCC reports ignore the significant impact of tectonic plate shifting, the most powerful force on Earth after gravity, on any rise or fall in sea level. (Sea level rise and fall is not uniform across the globe)

Fact: The IPCC ignores the impact of undersea volcanoes and undersea vents on warming the oceans and any increase in ocean CO2.

I will not get into how climate scientists ignore the impact of energy from the Solar Cycle as I said I would keep this simple.

Selectively ignoring the obvious does make any claim of global warming true. The margins of error are totally unacceptable considering the absurd future project and claims the models are accurate. The margin of error in climate models is so absurdly high you have better odds by tossing a coin.

I just finished reviewing the 3 part case submission from Anonymous. Too funny! His/her case information all checks out! Factual and logical. As we say in the computer world, Garbage In, Garbage Out. (GIGO).

@Anonymous Part 1 #3Climate is NOT the summation of weather, as you claim, and our inability to predict weather accurately very far into the future does not discredit climate change. Climate is a complex system, therefore the dynamics and behavior of climate are non-linear and more than the sum of it's parts (climate is not just weather added up). Weather is not predictable very far into the future because of chaos--there will always be a high level of uncertainty in weather forecasting that the largest computers in the world will not be able to do away with because the state space weather falls in has too many potential trajectories and pathways depending on initial conditions are--look up deterministic chaos. This does not mean that we cannot calculate probabilities of what weather is in our future, or a probabilistic understanding of how the climate will change in response to various types of forcings. Big difference between prediction and probability.

I don't want to take sides or anything, but... This may not sound good but... The Earth has periods that it goes through, the Ice age and the Warming period.As you may know the Ice age, is basically where the Earth froze. The warming period, is where Earth basically warms up and removes the frost and permafrost from the Earth. Currently we are in the Warming period, which means we will be getting hotter and hotter to remove the ice, then after a period of time and will return to the ice age period. Another thing is that. We are inching closer to the Sun every day. Also... If you think global warming hurts everything... It is not completely true. This may be a bad example..., but if you look at bull sharks. They have made the ability to adapt to multiple places such as fresh water and salt water. They were originally salt water sharks, but then they adapted to have the ability to be able to live in fresh water. If you want more message me, and I can say a bunch more examples :).Contact me at: k.richard132@outlook.com

Here is my submission for the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge, which refutes any warming due to CO2 or other greenhouse gasses:

"Man-made" global warming did occur, 1970 - 2000, but it had nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. All of the warming that occurred was simply a side effexct of the Clean Air Acts and similar efforts abroad.

A large volcanic eruption will inject huge amounts of aerosols (primarilly SO2) into the atmosphere, causing temporary global cooling. Temperatures will recover to pre-eruption levels as the pollution settles out, due to increased insolation.

For example, the Mount Pinatubo eruption (according to Self, et al) injected 17 Megatons of SO2 into the atmosphere, causing approx. 0.4 deg C. of global cooling. When the pollution settled out of the atmosphere, temperatures rose 0.4 deg C due to increased insolation.

Thus, the removal of 17 Megatons of SO2 from the atmosphere, for whatever reason, should result in a temperature rise of approx. 0.4 deg C.

According to the EPA (EPA.gov "Air Quality Trends, Table III), b etween the years 1980 - 2000, the atmospheric loading of SO2 was reduced by 10 Megatons. In Europe, 1980 - 1998, atmospheric loading of SO2 was reduced by 33 Megatons, for a total of 43 Megatons. (see "GEO-3: Global Environmental Outlook", United Nations Environmental Programme and note the graph) This is almost double the 17 Megatons needed for a tekmperature rise of 0.4 deg. C, thus guaranteeing that at least 0.4 deg C of the approx. 0.48 deg C of warming that occurred 1970 - 2000 was due to the reduction of aerosols in the atmosphere

When one consideres tha SO2 reduction was also occuring in the USA and Europe, 1970 - 1980, and in Europe 1998 - 2000, it is clear that ALL of the warming that occurred 1970 - 2000 was entirely due to aerosol removal from the atmosphere. There is simply no "room" for any warming due to greenhouse gasses.

Warming due to aerosol reduction can be considered to be a Law of Nature, since it occurs after every large volcanic eruption. This warming CANNOT beignored in any modeling of the climate.

There are a number of ramifications with respect to the above analysis, most notably that it can be used to explain the 17 year "pause" in global warming.

I look forward to your comments. I am confident tht I can answer any of your objections.

Burl, unfortunately, the most expert and esteemed climate scientists used by the CIA in 1974 (pretty much the cream of the crop) predicted GLOBAL COOLING.

In the 1970's, the most highly respected climate scientists, hired by the CIA, predicted that the Earth was COOLING. Library of Congress: “CIA August 1974: A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems." LC control no.: 76603473LC classification: QC981.8.C5 U513 1974CALL NUMBER: QC981.8.C5 U5131974 LANDOVR

From 1970 to 1980ish, there were on average, only 4 papers claiming global warming. Then the money came out and look what happened.

Some excerpts just from the first few pages:

Early in the 1970's a series of adverse climatic anomalies occurred. - The world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent.- In the eastern Canadian area of the Arctic Greenland, below normal temperatures were recorded for 19 consecutive months. Nothing like this had happened in the last 100 years

Because of the global cooling trend, the lower circumpolar vortex has in recent years stayed further south during the summer.

Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union, and major areas of northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow.

Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that climate change is taking place and that is has already caused major economic problems throughout the world.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but the topic of natural cycles has been already submitted several times and responded to. One more time, past cycles is not proof that today's warming trend is a natural cycle.

Dr. Keating, "past cycles is not proof that today's warming trend is a natural cycle." An equally absurd statement would “just because the Sun rises every morning does not mean it is a natural cycle.”

Logically, you cannot exclude the numerous past cycles considering the historical significance, the number of documented cycles, and the fact that Nature does its own thing without the influence of man and those evil fossil fuels. No reputable climate scientist (oxymoron?) could possibly ignore the multiple ices ages followed by periods of warming.

Oh I am so silly! Of course climate scientists can ignore facts, integrity is not a job qualification for the position. My bad. There is no doubt in my mind that climate scientists are today’s equivalent to snake oil salesman. Wait, better analogy, cannabis oil salesman are todays equivalent of climate scientists.

Christopher- I submitted my comment last night, but can not find it so I'll submit it again. The evidence I'd like to submit is that of Danish physicist, Dr. Henrik Svensmark. Specifically, I'd like to submit the documentary of his and his colleagues' work called, The Cloud Mystery, which you can view here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ In addition, I'd like to submit his supporting study which you can read here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL047036.pdf Please let me know if you have trouble accessing either one. Sincerely, Diane Cassidy

The planet has been "cooling" for at least the past 17 years, or so. And your so-called "experts" have never "once" demonstrated, recorded, or proven human causation for "any" global warming --- but the anthropogenic ["man-made"] global warming religion has proven very profitable for those who own the religion and who drag around by the rings in their noses the useful idiots, airheads, and drooling, googley-eyed, bobble-headed sycophants who have an intense itch to be followers and part of "a cause bigger than themselves."

Contemplate Gaseous Al Gore, the doomsday cult Chairman Of The Apocalypse, who sold his failed global warming alarmist TV station to Al Jazeera --- a propaganda arm of some oil dictatorship somewhere out there in Kaboomistan.

Now, isn't Al Gore building a huge new mansion in the tsunami / flood zone where it is sure to be inundated by the TOWERING WAVES of polar ice cap melt --- if his bullshirt theory of man-made global warming actually proves true to reality?

That lying fascist skunk must be laughing up his sleeve at all the idiots who have enriched him through his scam, his fraud --- man-made global warming.

So desperate now are the profiteers of his nutty religion that they are resorting once again to Hollyweird for scary big-screen movies and TV shows to carry their lunatic propaganda.

They turn scientific method on its head and demand that skeptics prove that "there is not" any man-made global warming --- but no one is obliged to prove any such thing, for the same reason that we are not obliged to prove that the moon "is not" made of green cheese.

OhBummer has hijacked my reference to the moon and the cheese in the past two weeks or so --- unless his speech was written by Biden The Magnificent --- that lobotomized serial plagiarist who serves as OhBummer's principal criminal accessory, after Eric The Red Holder.

The ecofreaks and enviromaniacs? Destroy them. Let's just focus on ensuring clean air and clean water.

One of the deniers favorite tactics is to point a the surface temperature and claim there has been no global warming while ignoring where 93% of all global warming goes to - the oceans. When you include the oceans into the equation global warming has been continuing.

Dr. Keating, a better observation would be: how is it possible that the climate models designed by the climate science experts, those brainiacs on everything, missed factoring in heat absorption by the oceans? Hmmm? Don't give yourself a headache on that one ;-)

I used to be very concerned about AGW. Recent errors in models and predictions caused me to reconsider.

Tell me, what good is a scientific consensus if they can't accurately predict the rate or the amount of global warming?

As an analogy, if 97% of stock brokers told you "this stock will go up in value, we just don't know how much or when" would you feel comfortable investing in it? Truly, one would not want to disagree with them in public but I think most of us would put our money elsewhere. So it is with policies related to global warming.

I would argue that if any of the models are true that it is cause for alarm (because they all essentially say the same thing), but I suppose that's a matter of opinion. How does that falsify climate change? If even some of the models are accurate, wouldn't that seem to support the theory?

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your prompt and respectful reply. I have already written this in my reply, but I'm quite convinced that my argument is as basic as 1 + 1 = 2, so I am writing to address your Ocean Warming comments.

My argument accounts for all the warming you want to include in your data, including Ocean Warming. Because my argument is based in logic, I don't need to provide my own data - I can use the data from folks who disagree with my position. Once again, the data is clear: the last 30 years has seen a massive increase in the rate of carbon emissions while the warming rate has been stable. This clearly shows that carbon emissions either have no effect on warming or have a cooling effect. Check it yourself: when can I expect payment?

Are you saying you wish to submit a proof that man made global warming is not real because underwater vents and volcanoes have not been included in the calculations? I believe that was your statement. If so, I will accept it and respond. If I made a mistake in my interpretation of your claim please let me know.

The conclusion of your argument is that CO2 does not cause warming. The problem is that we've known for 150 years that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, causing a greenhouse effect. John Tyndall discovered this and Svante Arrhenius built upon it. In fact, every single line of inquiry ever pursued has confirmed it. It's a fact more understood than gravity.

So if you have a logical proof that concludes that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then we are left with 2 options: 1) Either your proof is invalid, unsound, or some combination thereof. Or 2) Every single scientist who has ever studied CO2 from 1900 until the present is wrong.

Now, if you teach logic, I'm sure you're familiar with Occam's Razor: Which of those two options makes more assumptions?

Of course, we don't have to rely on succinctness and probability to conclude that your proof was wrong.

You never established what is an acceptable return rate of carbon increase to temperature increase. The temperature has undoubtedly increased over that last few decades. Were you expecting an exponential increase, a linear increase or what?

You also ignore that fact that the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since the 1970's, which would counter the effects of a greenhouse-induced temperature rise. Still, the temperature keeps rising. Should I even bring up the Milankovitch cycles, which suggest that the Earth should be cooling? Perhaps the Earth is not cooling as fast as you think it should, but it is still bucking what would otherwise be natural cooling trends. Hmmm, what could ever be the reason?

New research published today (Friday 27th June 2014) in the journal Nature Scientific Reports has provided a major new theory on the cause of the ice age that covered large parts of the Northern Hemisphere 2.6 million years ago.http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/06/new-theory-on-cause-of-ice-age-2-6-million-years-ago-2704014.html

“Our findings suggest a significant link between ice sheet growth, the monsoon and the closing of the Panama Seaway, as North and South America drifted closer together. This provides us with a major new theory on the origins of the ice age, and ultimately our current climate system.”

Surprisingly, the researchers found there was a strengthening of the monsoon during global cooling, instead of the intense rainfall normally associated with warmer climates.

Dr Stevens added: “This led us to discover a previously unknown interaction between plate tectonic movements in the Americas and dramatic changes in global temperature. The intensified monsoons created a positive feedback cycle, promoting more global cooling, more sea ice and even stronger precipitation, culminating in the spread of huge glaciers across the Northern Hemisphere.”

I'm not sure if you consider Occam's Razor to be part of the scientific method, but I would argue that if a single cause (i.e. natural cycles) is sufficient to explain both the warming periods of the past and also the warming of the present (which is smaller in magnitude to what has happened in the past) then by Occam's Razor we go with the single cause explanation, because it is the simplest, and most obvious explanation.

Only if something happening today was somehow unique and special and could not be adequately explained by natural cycles would it be necessary to start looking for some other explanation.

We know there were cycles in the past, but that has nothing to do with today.

Why would we believe that what happened in the past is irrelevant to today? It's a perfectly normal thing in science to believe that the same set of rules would apply universally (in the past and today just as much).

To put that another way: what basis do we have to conclude that the natural cycles decided to give up doing what they had always done before, and the man-made global warming started to take over? What year did the special even happen, and why that particular year?

The problem is that we generally understand what caused past warming cycles and those factors are not present. In fact, we have a pretty good idea what causes cooling cycles, too. When we consider those factors, the Earth should actually be in a natural cooling cycle, but that isn't the case. Greenhouse emissions are the wildcard.

We know how greenhouse gases work. We know that we're pumping more of them into the atmosphere. We know that the we should be experiencing cooler temperatures (the sun has actually shown a cooling trend since the 1970s); and we know that we're seeing warmer temperatures.

So let's apply Occam's razor. Either we are, in fact, heating the Earth with greenhouse emissions. Or there is a massive conspiracy among scientists to make it look like we are...a conspiracy that includes 97% of climate scientists and viturally every major academy of science of national or international note.

Is it possible that 75 people could have convinced themselves (with aid of a lot of government money) that they know rather more about "what caused past warming cycles" than they actually know? Yeah I think that's quite possible.

The simplest explanation still remains natural variability.

It doesn't take any extra assumptions to believe that a small bunch of people managed to get a bit of temporary limelight by making claims beyond what they could deliver. Just ignore those people, and we are back to natural variability. Easy.

Perhaps there might be value in a statistical analysis of history? Find out the probability that a small group of religious zealots were willing to declare themselves holders of the ultimate truth (and strangely also declare that other people need to pay homage on a regular basis). I wonder how many times that might have happened? Better apply for a government grant, this could be a significant result coming here...

You're position would violate Occam's razor because it also attributes an agenda to climate scientists. What if thier agenda is iust finding the truth? That is, after all, what they maintain. And you're assuming it's money. (Guess what? The climate exists whether or not climate change does so there will always be something to study)

Your June 28, 10:43 A.M. reply to my posting of June 28, 12.33 AM did not address anything that I had written. Does this mean that you were unable to refute any of my facts that all of the warming over the past several decades was due to the removal of aerosols from the atmosphere? If so, perhaps I should claim the prize!

You want to use the scientific method as a form of proof. This already demonstrates you do not understand what the scientific method is, nor how it works. In mathematics we have theorem proving, but in science everything is a theory, and every theory is open to new evidence that comes to light. A general concept cannot be proven nor disproven by the scientific method.

Allow me to demonstrate. Please prove, via the scientific method, that God did not create the Universe. Give it a try, and hopefully you will discover that it cannot be done. Science cannot be used to prove their either is or is not a God. Next week God himself may sit down next to you and say, "Ha! fooled you!", if not next week then maybe the week after, or after that. You cannot prove it will never happen. All you can say is so far it hasn't happened yet.

I can use the scientific method to disprove specific theories about global warming.

For example, back in 2000 a now famous article was titled "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" where Dr David Viner, of the University of East Anglia, said that snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event". The same article cited David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire with the claim that British children would have to make do with "virtual snow" because they would never see real snow.

Clearly these people made a prediction, and the prediction can be verified (a decade and a half later) as wrong. Their prediction was based on theory, the facts did not fit their theory and thus the specific theory must be wrong. Of course, you could now point to a different theory, and probably you will, but I can't prove all possible theories wrong even the ones that the AGW alarmists will come up with next year, and next decade and whenever a new idea jumps to mind.

Another specific example would be the IPCC prediction from 2007: “Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections; arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century” (AR4 SPM p15 also in AR4 ch10).

We know this did not happen. Global sea ice is actually growing, and there's no evidence of the arctic being ice-free, nor even close. Again, a specific prediction can be disproven by the scientific method... but the IPCC just come up with more of them!

Finally I'll point out that "man-made global climate change" is not clearly defined. Do you mean, any change caused by humans, even the slightest amount? Do you mean measurable change that can unequivocally be attributed to humans? Do you mean that climate change is mostly caused by humans? What about local climate change such as UHI, or cutting down trees? Those are not global by any means, but they could well have some tiny effect on a global measurement (note that all so called "global" measurements are really just the average of a bunch of local measurements). Can we ignore any local effects and only look at genuinely global effects?

How can I disprove something unless you clearly define what you are talking about?

I'm not claiming the prize by the way, I don't seriously expect you will ever pay out, but at least you might take the trouble to fix up the question.

Firstly, congratulations for your initiative. But there are some problems in your challenge:

1) Ultimately, one cannot prove anything in Science. One can, at the best, corroborate. Then you win in advance any challenge in which you request any scientific proof of something. For example: you could offer $ 1 billion to somebody proved that the theory of gravity is correct. And when a person submit a Newtonian solution, you could say it is inaccurate (if is inaccurate, is not a proof) and invoke the theory of relativity. If the person submit a relativistic "proof", you could disprove based on anomalies in the Pioneer 10 and 11, or based on the morphology of spiral galaxies (improper orbital velocity of stars in function of distance of the barycenter of galaxies), or based on inconsistency in the "G" measured along the years, whose amplitude variation is greater than would be expected based on the uncertainty of the experiments etc.

2) Climate changes happen all the time. You need to specify the range of the minimum change to be considered relevant, and subtract the effects of seasonality.

3) There are uncertainties in the measurements and no result can be fully trusted. Have a fiduciary limit (Fisher*) for any result. So the challenge should specify the minimum level of significance for rejection or acceptance of the null hypothesis.

I suggest you rephrase the statement of the challenge, so it can be considered as a true challenge. The way the rules are, you'll always be winning a priori, and not care if the challenge is global warming or the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Both cannot be "proven".

Beware the new statement, because depending on how you rephrase, it can be very easy to win, and anyone will take your money.

In my opinion, the thesis you wish to defend is that the empirical evidence shows that the probability of human activities interfering in the global climate in measurably and cumulative way is greater than the probability that there is no anthropogenic climate change. If it is your thesis, I think is a dangerous thesis, because the range of natural variations in climate throughout history is much greater than the changes observed in recent years.

I accept only the part that “empirical evidence shows that the probability that human activities are interfering in the planetary climate is greater than the probability that there is no anthropogenic climate change”. But no have, to my knowledge, sufficient evidence that the changes are cumulative long-term and much less that are measurable safely amid large spurious oscillations caused by noise or by natural events.

If a person throw a challenge contrary to yours, for example, and offer $ 30,000 to someone prove that exists a cumulative long-term climate change caused by human activity, you could not win the bet.

I’ll take up your challenge. But I don’t want your money, I want good science. It will be a three pronged approach: (1) changing climate is not evidence: evidence is found in the repetition of the claim – heat trapping CO2 does not repeat (at least to be special or measurable); (2) oddities in carbon climate science – it is not at all like other science; and (3) a refutation of the 1859 Tyndall experiment and the derived special GHG’s – it is the instrument that is special not he gases. All gases are.1. For heat trapping CO2 to have any credibility it would have to stand as a similar law of science, that is be repetitive – like all the other laws of science. This is what makes science science. If it weren’t for telescopes we’d (likely) still be in the geocentric paradigm as it is very difficult to prove without the aid of a telescope that we are not at the centre. The telescope reveals the repetition of a (Copernican) theory. Even with the telescope, Galileo had to prove extra the the world rotated and that a geocentric universe is an illusion. I argue that CO2 or for that matter manmade climate change is a similar illusion to geo-centricity.If CO2 traps heat as it is said to do it should co-explain the likes of: • plate tectonics, CO2 is there in both high concentrations and high temperatures – it doesn’t, water does; • respiration, why our breath is warm, again water does, but CO2 is there at around 45,000 ppmv. No animal uses CO2 to warm its breath ;• why meteorologists don’t measure CO2 to make predictions or explain cloud formation, and no one does, not pilots whose lives would depend on such knowledge – but they do measure and understand the physics of water; • avalanche (continuing from the above) and general snow pack stability. It doesn’t figure in any literature I have. We measure all other variables that effect temperature change in the snow pack, but not CO2. Not even on volcanos – it sinks, it’s heavy, it must be there. Our lives would depend on this!• utility: no one, nothing uses it for its said claim of trapping heat. I don’t buy CO2; there is not market for it. Wouldn’t it be used to trap heat in my house – as we do water? It should be in between our double glazed windows, and be part of the solution to the problem it is said to cause – as a heat trapper? No, it is not.This was from my blog entry: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/5-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html2. Carbon climate science is odd, not at all like other areas of science.• Where is the complexity – the deep physics? It’s all too simple! It is explained to school children in school books as it is to adults in adult university science books. It not hard to understand and this is odd. Science is hard! It gets harder. We can all read about quantum weirdness in popular science, but to study quantum mechanics in depth is extremely challenging – this goes for all science, but not CO2 climate change. • Where are the experiments, the research, and the multibillion dollar budgets? The Kepler and Hubble telescope / LHC like experiments. All it has it computer models. That is not science. • Where are the PhD’s on understanding the physics of CO2 – this extreme threat? If have found none! This is not like the stuff of viruses, asteroids or volcanos or any other areas of science. The PhD’s are going to studying future effects and engineering green tech. They are parasitic on other areas of knowledge, and this is fallacy. • Where are the typical science statements from scientists at the top of their field: ‘We still have much to learn’; ‘we don’t yet have a full understanding....’;’.. the more we dig, the more questions we discover..’?• Carbon climate scientist’s claim to know – to have consensus – and this is odd. Other sciences never say such things, and if they do, it is not for long.

This particular climate change that is going on in the world right now is not man made. It is a 12,000-12,500 year glaciation cycle that occurs because of the Earth's axial tilt changing and the mass of the ice caps swapping. I can best illustrate my proof with this video which is more like a PDF but it is in Youtube format.

I wasn't sure where to submit an entry. Could my video be submitted to the contest please? Thanks in advance. I also have all the information that is in the video in pdf format and jpgs. The video just makes it easier to view but you do have to watch it fullscreen and with at least 480p screen resolution.

3. The 1859 John Tyndall experiment is flawed. It is 18th Century electric trickery, and has lead us to believe in (possibly) the most nonsense scientific premise in the history of science: that only the ‘GHGs’ (2% of gases in the atmosphere) trap heat, and that the remaining N2 and O2 (98%) are not GHG’s because they don’t. Infrared (IR) – sensed by us as heat – thermopile detectors (the same used in the Tyndall experiment deriving the GHG’s) are easily and cheaply available today and are used in noncontact infrared thermometers, thermal imaging cameras and importantly IR spectroscopy. They are all related through electric thermopile. Application of these thermopile IR detector instruments (their operation manuals) reveals they don’t measure temperature of all substances or see all substances – N2 and O2 are such substances, germanium is another. These substances are transparent to the instruments (in the IR frequency range). It is the instrument that is special and not the gases. It is all to do with the atomic vibration: N2 and O2 have only symmetric vibrations and so are IR inactive, and so transparent, but they are not Raman inactive (Raman Spectroscopy is a complimentary instrument to IR spectroscopy). IR thermometers are said to be no substitute for traditional thermometers and must be used with caution especially with these special substances. Imagine a sauna made with walls of (IR transparent) germanium, and heated to sauna temperature. To a regular traditional thermometer it would register hot; to a noncontact IR thermometer it would read not the inside temperature of the sauna, but the same temperature as the outside of the sauna. It would ‘see’ right through walls (apart of course for the water vapor and other trace gases). It would be useless. N2 and O2 are stealth gases: they are to IR thermopile thermometer instruments as stealth bombers are to radar. This was from my blog entry: http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/12/the-gassy-messenger-magic-of-ir.htmlCO2 has no heat trapping specialty (it does trap heat, only as much as it’s specific heat capacity allows; its science appears no more than an agenda; and the science is all based on a false premise, one that can be refuted by simple application of a 30US$ noncontact IR thermometer.

THE EARTH IS DYING FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE By Art GreenfieldNow the truth is coming out. The greenhouse gasses that are causing global warming are coming from the billions of tons of tobacco that are burned every year, and from dozens of massive forest fires caused by careless smokers. Below is a list of dangerous gasses released into the atmosphere from smoking. Smoking causes SMOKE. It is not a harmless vapor..Cigarette smoke contains over 7000 chemicals, and 70 of these are known to cause cancer.See: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2010/consumer_booklet/chemicals_smoke/List of greenhouse AND POISON gasses released into the air by smoking:CARBON DIOXIDE - THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GASCARBON MONOXIDE - POISON GASAMMONIA - POISON GAS THAT ENHANCES NICOTENE POTENCY AND ABSOPTION IN BODYACETONE - POISON GASTOLUENE - POISON GASHYDROGEN CYANIDE - GAS CHAMBER POISONBERNZENE - POISON GASNAPTHALENE - POISON GASBUTANE - POISON GASMETHROPENE - FLEA POWDER POISONNICOTENE - RAT AND INSECT POISONUREA - WASTE PRODUCT COMPONENT OF URINEAMMONIUM PHOSPHATE - POISON HERBICIDEADDITIONALLY MILLIONS OF TONS OF GASOLINE, TREES, COAL FOR POWER PLANTS, AND DIESEL FUEL ARE BURNED IN THE PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND TRAVELING BY THE PUBLIC TO PURCHASE TOBACCO PRODUCTS.I found an Australian website that was not afraid of any backlash from Big Tobacco that showed the truth. http://www.oxygen.org.au/hardfacts/tobacco-and-the-environmentThe damage just in Australia is horrendous:Pollution is not the only way cigarettes damage the environment.

Approximately 5 million hectares (600 million trees) of forest are destroyed each year to provide trees to dry tobacco. This is the same size of 3.6 million Aussie Rules Football fields.Over 32 billion cigarettes are smoked in Australia each year. If the butts from these cigarettes were placed end to end, they would circle the planet 16 times.Litter caused by cigarette butts is a significant problem in Australia. Nearly 7 billion cigarette butts are not disposed of properly in Australia each year.Nearly 7% of bushfires, which are responsible for 14 deaths each year, are caused by carelessly discarded burning cigarette butts.When it rains, cigarette butts lying in our streets and gutters are washed in to our harbours, beaches and rivers. The chemicals in these butts and the butts themselves impact on our water quality and can be deadly to our marine life (Clean up Australia).Cigarette butts can take up to 12 months to break down in fresh water and up to five years to break down in sea water (Clean up Australia).Cigarette butts have been found in the stomachs of young birds, sea turtles and other marine creatures (Clean up Australia).Tobacco and the environmentWhen people smoke they not only damage their ownhealth, they also damage the environment.

Humans are directly responsible for global warming by trapping beavers and destroying beaverdams. Beaverdams (and wetlands) are directly responsible for the earth's cooling due to evaporation; great lakes are Ontario with lots of water= lots of rain, high levels of humidity help create thunderstorms. Africa= no significant lakes, therefore no evaporation and less rain. If Beavers exists in Africa they would dam up every river and tributary until parts of the great plains are wet, water would evaporate to make more rains in a never ending cycle.

How this affects the global climate average is a legitimate question, I'm sure lots of factors do contribute, including the one you describe. This in turn opens the question of whether "global climate" even has a meaning? After all, no human lives in a global climate, we all live somewhere local. No crop is ever grown in a "global climate" because every farm is local.

During the Medieval Warm Period (approx 1000 years ago), there were Viking graves dug into land that is solid ice now. Climate scientists tell us that this is a local issue, unrelated to global climate change. That would be no comfort for the people in Greenland whose farms died when the Little Ice Age settled around them.

Now can you prove that this effect is smaller than the logarithmic warming carbon dioxide would cause by itself? If you can't then I've provided sufficient doubt that carbon dioxide will warm the planet (i.e. carbon dioxide having a net warming effect is thus not proved and should be considered false until such evidence comes in).

Christopher,your site will not allow my full empirical disproof of AGW to be published. So I will just put this link here -http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg- as a place marker and screen shot it.

That little empirical experiment that even highschool kids can build demonstrates the difference between a UV/SW “selective surface” and a “near blackbody”. It demonstrates why the sun alone is heating the oceans above their theoretical blackbody temp of -18C. DWLWIR is not involved. The very foundation of the entire AGW hoax depends on claiming the oceans to be a “near blackbody” and that the atmosphere slows their cooling rate. And this claim is false. It is this that utterly disproves not just AGW but the idea of a net radiative GHE as well.

The full empirical proof has several thousand words, multiple empirical experiments and around 20 diagrams and experiment photos, but your site won't allow me to post it.

This screen shot allows me to be the first to say -The oceans are a UV/SW selective surface not a near blackbody.The sun alone heats the oceans.Given 1 bar pressure, the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is cooling of the oceans.The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is therefore cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.AGW is therefore a physical impossibility.

Now play fair Christopher. Allow me to publish all the empirical proof.

Christopher,disproving AGW is simple, and the disproof can be empirically demonstrated. AGW depends on the unproven hypothesis of a net radiative “greenhouse effect” raising the surface temperature of our planet 33C above its theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C. But there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.

Does this mean there is an error in current radiative physics? No. The two layer radiative model that is the foundation of global warming claims works. You can even build an empirical model -http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpghttp://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpghttp://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg- The target plate in chamber 1 reaches the higher equilibrium temperature. But this has no relationship to the reality of our planet. Standard S-B equations work for matt black plates separated by vacuum. They don’t work when coupling between “layers” in occurring via non-radiative transports. They don’t work on moving gases. They certainly don't work on semi transparent surfaces and they don't work on materials cooled by evaporation.

And it is the last two points that are the killer for not just AGW but the very idea of a net radiative GHE on our planet.

All of the AGW hoax can be disproved by just correctly answering one very, very simple question -“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”

The radiative GHE hypothesis stands or falls on this question as 71% of the planets surface is covered in ocean. If the net effect of the atmosphere over the ocean is cooling, AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both disproved. Why? Because if the net effect of the atmosphere over 71% of the planets surface is cooling, the atmosphere in turn needs a cooling mechanism. The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases. If, given 1 bar pressure, the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then AGW, as you requested, is disproved.

So is our atmosphere warming or cooling our oceans? The AGW hypothesis states that DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the oceans allowing the average 240 w/m2 received to heat them above -18C to 15C.

Can DWLWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The answer is no. Not to any measurable degree. This can be shown by the simplest empirical experiments -http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpgI have been running multiple versions of this experiment since 2011 -http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg

Just fill the sample containers with 40C water under the strong and weak LWIR sources. You will note no divergence in their cooling rate. Repeat, but this time float a square of LDPE film onto the surface of each sample. Now, when evaporative cooling is prevented, the sample cooling rates diverge. Incident LWIR, even if emitted from a cooler material, can slow the cooling rate of most materials. It just doesn’t work for liquid water that can evaporatively cool.

But if DWLWIR is not keeping our oceans above -18C what could be doing it? The oceans are a “near blackbody” aren't they? An average 240 w/m2 of incident solar radiation should only result in a temperature of 255K (-18C). Well the simple answer is that the oceans are not a near blackbody, they are what is known to engineers (but not climastrologists) as a “selective surface”.

Christopher,disproving AGW is simple, and the disproof can be empirically demonstrated. AGW depends on the unproven hypothesis of a net radiative “greenhouse effect” raising the surface temperature of our planet 33C above its theoretical blackbody temperature of -18C. But there is no net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.

Does this mean there is an error in current radiative physics? No. The two layer radiative model that is the foundation of global warming claims works. You can even build an empirical model -http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpghttp://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpghttp://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg- The target plate in chamber 1 reaches the higher equilibrium temperature. But this has no relationship to the reality of our planet. Standard S-B equations work for matt black plates separated by vacuum. They don’t work when coupling between “layers” in occurring via non-radiative transports. They don’t work on moving gases. They certainly don't work on semi transparent surfaces and they don't work on materials cooled by evaporation.

And it is the last two points that are the killer for not just AGW but the very idea of a net radiative GHE on our planet.

All of the AGW hoax can be disproved by just correctly answering one very, very simple question -“given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans warming or cooling?”

The radiative GHE hypothesis stands or falls on this question as 71% of the planets surface is covered in ocean. If the net effect of the atmosphere over the ocean is cooling, AGW and the radiative GHE hypothesis are both disproved. Why? Because if the net effect of the atmosphere over 71% of the planets surface is cooling, the atmosphere in turn needs a cooling mechanism. The only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases. If, given 1 bar pressure, the atmosphere is cooling the oceans, then AGW, as you requested, is disproved.

So is our atmosphere warming or cooling our oceans? The AGW hypothesis states that DWLWIR slows the cooling rate of the oceans allowing the average 240 w/m2 received to heat them above -18C to 15C.

Can DWLWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? The answer is no. Not to any measurable degree. This can be shown by the simplest empirical experiments -http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpgI have been running multiple versions of this experiment since 2011 -http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg

Just fill the sample containers with 40C water under the strong and weak LWIR sources. You will note no divergence in their cooling rate. Repeat, but this time float a square of LDPE film onto the surface of each sample. Now, when evaporative cooling is prevented, the sample cooling rates diverge. Incident LWIR, even if emitted from a cooler material, can slow the cooling rate of most materials. It just doesn’t work for liquid water that can evaporatively cool.

But if DWLWIR is not keeping our oceans above -18C what could be doing it? The oceans are a “near blackbody” aren't they? An average 240 w/m2 of incident solar radiation should only result in a temperature of 255K (-18C). Well the simple answer is that the oceans are not a near blackbody, they are what is known to engineers (but not climastrologists) as a “selective surface”.

Underwater Volcanoes erupt very often under the deep sea.Around 5-10% of the sea bed/floor is mapped. These volcanoes erupt spewing lava into our oceans and seas, the lava solidifies and becomes a solid rock.

This heavy rock cause a change in sea levels which affects all sea levels on earth.

*Another way of thinking of this *

Half a pint of water = SeaDrop a golf ball into the pint glass of water. What happens?

The water level rises.

The golf ball acts as the underwater volcanoes eruption which produces solidified rock which cause the water levels to rise.

Global warming is based on ice core samples that are 700,000 years old, but the Earth is billions of years old.

Taken into account lets just say the last 100 millions years, the Earth is in a cold spell. There is no doubt that we are putting gases into the air that have an impact of the atmosphere, but how much of an effect?

Maybe the answer is as simple as the Earth is returning to it equilibrium temperature.

Most of the widespread devotion to man-made global warming boils down to one fact - and only one fact; the preposterous notion that 97% of Earth’s scientists have determined that man plays a major role in our planet’s climate. If you take the claim of consensus away then you’re left with almost nothing.

So here’s the $30,000 question for every man-made global warming advocate. What is the name of the study that surveyed all climate scientists? Who commissioned it? When was it done? And if the study didn’t actually question every scientist in the world, exactly how many scientists did it question?

Note that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not represent all scientists – or anything remotely close to all scientists. The United Nation’s IPCC consists of roughly 2,600 volunteers who have offered to seek out and publish reports that corroborate the United Nation’s politicians’ belief in man-made global warming.

Secondly, the United States National Academy of Science only consists of 2,300 experts coming from widely divergent backgrounds in medicine, engineering and science. Very, very few members of the United States National Academy of Science are climate scientists.

NASA’s website backs up its man-made global warming claim with a list of 18 organizations (most of which aren’t comprised of climate scientists) such as the American Medical Association and the American Chemical Society, along with the aforementioned United States Academy of Science. The NASA website also has the audacity to include the American Physical Society on its list despite the fact that in 2008 the American Physical Society publicly recanted its prior “unquestionable” support for man-made climate change. Furthermore the NASA website also identifies the American Meteorological Society on its list of supporters despite the fact that the organization now states they have nothing close to a 99% consensus among their members.

So here are the numbers you really need to know. There is NO study of ALL scientists or anything like it – and there never has been. Despite the fact that you hear about this fictitious survey over and over and over, it doesn’t exist. It’s a propaganda myth designed to induce mass hypnosis (quite successfully I might add). Nobody can cite the name of a large scale study that has surveyed all scientists.

As for actual surveys that have involved a large number of scientists, the percentage of respondents who believe that the man-made global warming consensus is settled is much closer to 50/50.

Joseph, the most citied 97% study was done by W. R. L. Anderegg, a graduate student.

“Expert Credibility in Climate Change" - the exact number of climate scientists is 903 out of over 1,300 who were published. Or did you have another 97% believe bogus study in mind?

Anderegg was a PhD student at the time in the department of Biology at Stanford University and never personally conducted any climate research. He did a skewed survey of the "believers." Starting with 1,372 climate researchers, he shrank the number down to 903 believers (97% of 908) based upon minimum 20 papers written, and by eliminating a few duplicate names from spelling errors.

Actually, 97% comes from quite a few studies. Even Climate Change Denier Richard Tol got 92% when he "corrected" the errors in Cook's study. Subsequently, real scientists found errors in his methodology and returned the number to--you guessed it--97%

While I appreciate the study of roughly 1,372 climate scientists, a survey released by the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals (an organization with over twelve thousand environmental practitioners) found in 2006,“that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions.” (National Post, June 3, 2007)

Furthermore, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Global Warming Petition Project has been signed (so far) by more than 33,000 scientists (over 9,000 PhDs), who flatly refute the claim that there is ANY convincing evidence that man is a significant cause of global warming. The Oregon Institute’s petition states that: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (See Global Warming Petition Project Online) . In addition, a survey of 51,000 earth scientists and engineers found that over two-thirds of them reject the notion that the debate on man-made global warming has been scientifically concluded. According to the Edmonton Journal, “A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’ The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.” (Edmunton Journal, March 8, 2008).

The American Physical Society, which represents about 50,000 scientists, also has expressed serious doubts about man-made global warming theory. We’re talking about an organization that used to insist that the consensus among the world’s scientists concerning man-made global warming was absolutely unquestionable. This organization has since recanted its former claim of incontrovertibility, explaining that, “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.” (Daily Tech, July 18, 2008)

The American Physical Society changed its stance after coming to the conclusion that many of the scientists serving on the United Nation’s IPCC have been deliberately and grossly overstating the impact of man-made emissions by concealing and obscuring the dubious methodology by which they derived their conclusions. In other words, the organization is politely calling the scientists working for United Nations “liars.”

If the evidence provided by tens of thousands of skeptical scientists isn’t enough to convince you that you have been deliberately misled to believe that “99% of all scientists believe in man-made global warming,” consider the fact that out of every research paper published on global warming between 2004 and 2007, fifty-four percent (that’s more than half) were either skeptical or rejected the theory outright. According to the researchers, “Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus.” (Daily Tech, August 29, 2007).

It has been theorized that the use of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone. All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heat reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of: r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere): 1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km² 1,366,000,000 W/km² • 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s) 175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/sThat result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period: 100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 sWe can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years: 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s • 3,155,760,000 s/100yr = 552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yrNow we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:

Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g•°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it: V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π • 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³ V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π • 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³ V = V(tot) - V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ - 1,083,206,917 km³ = 8,694,154 km³Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin: 1.012 J/g•°K = 1.012 kJ/kg•°K 1.012 kJ/kg•°K • 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³•°K Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ • 8,694,154 km³ = 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJBut to be accurate, the troposphere is not the only thing warming up. It has been often claimed (correctly) that the oceans are a major heat sink. So let us now calculate the amount of energy required to raise the ocean temperature by a single degree Kelvin. The volume of water on the surface of the Earth is an estimation, but several estimations are available and all of them are close. Therefore, in the interests of conservatism, I am using the smaller of the estimated values: 1,347,000,000 km³[8]. The specific heat capacity of water by volume is 4.186 J/cm³•°K[6] at 25°C. Thus, in order to raise the temperature of the oceans by a single degree Kelvin: 4.186 J/cm³•°K = 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³•°K 4,186,000,000,000 kJ/km³•°K • 1,347,000,000 km³ = 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ/°K As before, since we are considering a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, this is equal to 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJWe now add the values for the troposphere and the oceans together to obtain the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of these two areas combined by a single degree Kelvin: 5,638,542,000,000,000,000,000 kJ + 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ = 5,638,532,558,180,617,600,000 kJNow, remember from earlier calculations the total amount of energy that is available from the solar irradiance that can intercept anthropogenic carbon dioxide: 55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ

So if we know the energy required to raise a single degree, and we know how much energy can be intercepted by the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, we can calculate how many degrees of temperature rise could possibly happen. Remember, please, that we are making the following assumptions in these calculations:We only include the energy required to raise the temperatures of the troposphere (where the carbon dioxide is) and the oceans (climatic heat sink). No energy calculations are included to this point for land masses or for upper atmospheric levels, each of which would, in reality, contribute in some way to the amount of energy required. We are assuming that 100% of the available solar irradiance is being absorbed by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This includes shortwave solar irradiation which is actually reflected back into space without being absorbed, and it also includes radiation that is absorbed through other means such as photosynthesis. We are assuming 100% conversion of that intercepted energy by anthropogenic carbon dioxide into heat, and not calculating how much of that heat is dissipated back into space through emission.All of the above are extremely conservative assumptions. Inclusion of them will only decrease the expected temperature increases due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Now, the actual calculation we have been waiting for: Energy(required) / Energy(available) = Ratio 5,638,552,558,180,617,600,000 kJ / 55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ = 102.03It would require 102 times as much energy as is available now to raise the temperature 1°K in 100 years. In other words, if ALL of the solar irradiance that the anthropogenic CO2 could intercept were converted into heat, and if it took no energy to warm the land masses and the upper atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would only warm by about 0.01°K in 100 years.

What's the matter son. Numbers or maths to big for you to understand? Maybe take off the 0's if that will help you.... the case is not a simple one and can not be answered in 10 words or less. Also, the work does not have to be your own... read the T&C's. This is simply the best explination and proof around. Deny your ignorance, read it again, sorry, lots of big words may scare you a bit.

“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”

P. 2“These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century,” Booker adds.

I believe the recent 10 year warming of the earth by approximately 0.5 degrees celcius is being caused by the 2004 Banda Aceh earthquake. It is known the earthquake of 9.3 magnitude shifted the earth on its axis. As you can see from your warming map, the Artic is warmer which means the North Pole was shifted in a more direct angle to the Sun. In comparison, the Antarctic is cooling approximately 0.25 degrees celcius, indicating the South Pole is shifted away from the sun. As you have shown, approximately the last ten years have been the warmest on record, corresponding to the 2004 earthquake

Global warming is fake because even NAPA is faking reports, if it wasn't fake they wouldn't have to do that;Five years after its previous satellite crashed right after lift off and during the same month that a NASA climate scientist was reported as having faked global warming data, the American space agency is spending nearly $500 million to launch a new satellite into space to monitor the effects of global warming.

In June, it was reported that scientists at NASA and NOAA were seemingly manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of "global warming" in the 20th century.

As Breitbart News reported on June 23, raw data seems to show that there is little if any evidence of global warming and even some evidence of global cooling. "However, once the data has been adjusted—i.e. fabricated by computer models--20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic."

Now the space agency is readying to launch a new satellite dedicated to monitoring global warming. But it is a replacement for one that went disastrously wrong three years ago, which is itself a replacement for one that went wrong five years ago.

In 2009, NASA tried to launch a similar climate monitoring satellite, but just after lift off, the rocket crashed into the ocean near Antarctica, failing to bring its payload to space. The agency tried again in 2011, but that rocket, too, went down in flames.

This year, NASA will make another attempt with a satellite that is nearly identical to the one that burned up in 2011. The new device is "designed to study the main driver of climate change emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes."

"The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2 for short," the AP reported, "will be able to take an ultra-detailed look at most of the Earth's surface to identify places responsible for producing or absorbing the greenhouse gas."

The study of global warming is deemed an "emergency" by NASA and its associate scientists.

"We don't have time to waste. We need solutions now," said one of the authors of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, Elisabeth Holland, a professor of climate change at the University of South Pacific in Fiji.

But after two expensive failures and even as the data that drives climate change science is under attack, NASA officials are exuberant about this new venture.

"We're excited about this opportunity--this opportunity to finally be able to complete some unfinished business," project manager Ralph Basilio said.

First off, when studying statistics you are taught (for those who never took a philosophy course called "Logic") you can never prove a negative. So, I could not PROVE there is no Easter bunny, or Santa Clause, all i can do is prove no evidence proving his existence exists. As Dave pointed out NO ONE doubts climate change. Climate change is a constant in both long and short term. What has not been proven is that man made CO2 has had any kind of significant effect on changing global temperature in either way cooling or heating. No model has been presented that cans how global warming is man made, those models have been shown to be inaccurate, and at the same time the source documents that would be used to replicate the model by independent sources can nor will not be produced.

I live in argentina and can see in a paleonthological reservoir in neuquen thats its almost desert, grand cannyon like, but the fossils are shells from ocean being there millions of years ago, this means that there were things like pangea, and also pole shifts all along in the earth's history, like many scientist have said that nile river thousands of years ago made egypt not a desertic place but a very human habitable place. This shows us that every thousands of years or millions of years the are natural changes. Many scientist saying mars used to have water because of the structure of some "paths" where water used to flow, so this shows as well how the universe it self is constantly changing and in movement. Humans have been very destructive yes. but so have volcanos, earthquakes, the shift from pangea to our current continental layer positions, the pole shifts, and who knows what else we can add talking about astrophysics and how dark matter, gravity, and plasma, etc.We are just starting to understand genes, atoms, molecules and more in this past less than 100 years. We still live by by a romanic system, with a senate and constitution based on carta magna for law, we have nanotechnology in japan and other countries while still people starving in africa the educational distance there is between some races and others (and this has happened through all history cruzades, inquisition, monarquies, da'vinci, isaak newton, etc) there has always been a great gap within humanity's knowledge. So what ever scientist are saying about global warming is just a preasumption because they really do not have any evidence that there has not always in all EARTH'S history natural climate changes.

"prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring"

is nebulous to the point of silliness, and can never be proven as long as man is part of the "environment".

Outside the rules, Keating says, "The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise," but that's an entirely different proposition than the challenge posted in the rules.

Anyone taking up said challenge thrown down on such imprecise parameters is wasting his time. The whole thing is built on false premises. The climate always changes. The changing climate is always a result of sundry inputs, including human related inputs.

Most skeptics don't dispute that climate changes, and don't contend that human activity is completely irrelevant to the process. The serious questions are whether or not the planet is on a path to catastophic warming, and whether or not human activity is a factor in it. If Keating can't even put his money behind an honest challenge, what use is he?

5000 years ago , Elephants lived in China's Beijing area, the weather was warm than today, china's Ancient books record many things like this , i think the global warming is just a Joke !!!!!!!!!!, it's just a cycle ！！！，warm then cold , and then warm ....; you shoud to read some Chinese ancient books .

Today, Chinese only in southern Yunnan have a little elephant distribution. In fact, in ancient times, the distribution range of elephants in the China is extremely wide. Neolithic Age in the the Yellow River basin has frequently appeared in elephant, Yu the great battle like legend, not without foundation. Hebei Yangyuan County found that the Asian elephant's teeth and bones left, the era is about at the end of Xia Dynasty (about 3000 ~ 4000), which is now known as the North Asia World Records distribution, about latitude 40 ° 11 ', and Beijing in the same latitude. From 8000 to 2500, human productivity is very low, the impact on the natural environment is weak, the annual average temperature in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River is now up to 2 ~ 3 ℃, the average temperature in winter of the coldest month is now high more than 5 ℃, a large part of North China area is subtropical climate, lush vegetation and around the lakes provide very favorable conditions for elephants living. Henan Yin Ruins in Anyang was found to have some like bones. The famous "24 filial piety" in such a few words "Shungeng in Lishan mountain. Some like to plow. A bird was weeding." Lishan in Ji Yin Chengyang, Shandong is today, and Dongming. Of course, the so-called elephant tillage and not today this cattle farming the same land, but land and elk, wild animal came to spring marsh wetland foraging, they put on tooth pulp, turned upside down, and then the ancients in these trodden place seeds. The wild elephants in the lower reaches of the Yellow River distribution, in the Shang Dynasty oracle bones in the book, there are many about like records, such as the Shang king once in Qinyang near Taihang Mountain on the south side of a bag of 7 Wild elephants. At that time, not only as the clan, but also domesticated elephants, sometimes fight out like army, "Lu spring and Autumn" set: "the merchant service, running from east." Not only is one of as livestock, and at the same time, ivory raw materials for handicraft industry is very developed, there are used in instruments, like dance in the dance, the Shang and Zhou dynasties as well as hairpin, like, like, like, like Gu Hu, ring, like comb with ivory ornaments. Like distribution is also reflected in the names, called "Henan" to "pictographic character, is a guy like, a symbol of harmony between man and nature, peace. Not only that, as a sacrificial way. Or the tomb area, Yin Ruins was found like a pit, a pit buried in pigs, also found a burial pit like. Visible, in ancient times the elephant and the Central Plains people our relationship is very close. However, with the progress of production, human activities continue to increase, enlargement of the natural development of the habitat of ancient the Yellow River, downstream of the elephant is bounded on the north by also continue southward, to the business end of the week mainly in southern Shandong, the spring and Autumn period (about 2500) began to cool the climate of the the Yellow River River Basin, the wild elephants have been moved to Huaihe river north and south. Therefore, in the Warring States period, the lower reaches of the Yellow River wild elephant is very rare.From 500 BC to 1050 this period, the northern boundary of the elephant activity in Qinling Mountains and Huaihe to the south of the line of the Yangtze River basin. Although at the time the elephant occasionally moved to the north of Huaihe, but has been unable to live through the winter, and one to Huaibei, the local people to kill. In the upper reaches of the Yangtze River in Sichuan Basin, the elephant before Jin Dynasty still living in the north, but after the Tang Dynasty is mainly limited to the Sichuan East Chongqing to Qijiang in the vicinity of the Jiangnan area. In the middle reaches of the Yangtze River i